I would think it's probably due to there not being a mention of dwarven weapons being crafted for the destruction of a certain enemy. I could be wrong but I can't think of any. Both other kinds of weapons have a specific example(s) of banes.

I would think it's probably due to there not being a mention of dwarven weapons being crafted for the destruction of a certain enemy. I could be wrong but I can't think of any. Both other kinds of weapons have a specific example(s) of banes.

I think this is likely true. I think there were dwarven armor and Helms that were made to fight Dragons, but no specific mention of weapons. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch though.

On the undertaking "go to the market pool" and the first option of having precious stones set in the weapon's hilt, my AiME group made a change (house rule) as none of the players or I felt that setting stones in the hilt would improve a weapon's ability to hit or damage - plus it wasn't clear if the weapon would become magic (as the dwarf-forged weapon or weaponmaster's birthright weapon or cultural heirloom weapons - see LMG pg155).

So instead, we decided it might be better to have the weapon improve the persuasion or intimidation bonus for the wearer (similar to the Warrior's birthright weapon gained at 3rd level with the Weaponmaster archetype) - we felt this fitted better with the concept of precious stones in the hilt - intimidating or impressing the viewer.

As such, at our table, taking this first option adds either +1 to intimidation OR +1 to persuasion in each case only if the weapon is worn or held in sight of the person or persons to be affected. A second visit allows a further +1 to intimidation OR persuasion (ie +2/+0, +1/+1 or +0/+2).

We felt this also allowed a non-weaponmaster player some way of getting close to the weaponmaster's birthright weapon by buying a dwarf-wrought weapon and then having precious stones fitted.

On the undertaking "go to the market pool" and the first option of having precious stones set in the weapon's hilt, my AiME group made a change (house rule) as none of the players or I felt that setting stones in the hilt would improve a weapon's ability to hit or damage - plus it wasn't clear if the weapon would become magic (as the dwarf-forged weapon or weaponmaster's birthright weapon or cultural heirloom weapons - see LMG pg155).

So instead, we decided it might be better to have the weapon improve the persuasion or intimidation bonus for the wearer (similar to the Warrior's birthright weapon gained at 3rd level with the Weaponmaster archetype) - we felt this fitted better with the concept of precious stones in the hilt - intimidating or impressing the viewer.

As such, at our table, taking this first option adds either +1 to intimidation OR +1 to persuasion in each case only if the weapon is worn or held in sight of the person or persons to be affected. A second visit allows a further +1 to intimidation OR persuasion (ie +2/+0, +1/+1 or +0/+2).

We felt this also allowed a non-weaponmaster player some way of getting close to the weaponmaster's birthright weapon by buying a dwarf-wrought weapon and then having precious stones fitted.

Anyway, I thought that might add to the debate.

I've done something very similar, for the same reason. Setting precious stones in your weapon hilt gives you a +1 bonus to Traditions checks. The idea being that possessing finely adorned weapons gives you a better first impression.